Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Belfield (4th nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Alex Belfield
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This page has been tagged for G4 speedy deletion as a repost of an article that was already deleted twice at AfD and nominated once before that. It has a few sources that weren't in the previous versions so it's too borderline to be summarily deleted, but I dunno if these new sources add enough to defeat the "repost" concern. Opinions? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: I have undone the previous NAC close as I think that the editors !voting "keep" should address 's argumenyt that this is a case of BLP1E. Thanks. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, Crime,  and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. All but one of the sources were published before the previous AfD. That new source is from a local publisher, not one that demonstrates any kind of lasting or widespread notability. It's certainly not the kind of top-tier sources we should be using for BLP claims. Woodroar (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep More than enough continued coverage, this Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This, seems semi-RS, Sky News . Tons of coverage in the BBC, I suppose because he worked there. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also coverage in the Guardian, which is a RS. and in Deadline . He's been convicted of a crime, this is either PERPETRATOR or CRIME. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: The subject meets WP:PERPETRATOR, a factor that was not considered in the previous AfDs. - GA Melbourne (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - indeed meets WP:PERPETRATOR. Editor Oaktree is right above about continued coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:PERP with sources presented by Oaktree. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Every single source above is about his trial - WP:BLP1E. He was previously deleted as non-notable (because he was) and the only thing that's happened since is he's gone to jail. As the very least, should be moved to Trial of Alex Belfield. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree that before the trial, this was an iffy notability case of simply being a journalist. During and after the trial, it's become notable for what he's said and done during the trial, and how his actions affected others. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * It might be only one event, but he's a famous journalist in the UK and was harassing other public figures; it's not some guy stalking other nobodies, this is a person that was in the spotlight before getting charged/arrested/sentenced, there are also some right-wing ideologies at play, not far-removed from the Trump kerfuffle/media circus that happens in the US. This clearly documents how the right-wing camp has taken hold in the UK, even echoing some of the same lamentations in the trial you'd hear in the USA if it was a journalist there. There isn't much else happening as of this moment, but I'd be very surprised of this individual doesn't get themselves back in the news again for doing some other thing along these lines. The fact that they were chastised by the judge during the trial tells me they'll use that to fuel their narrative in the future. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * He's also basically told people "I'll be back" after the jail sentence, so this isn't likely the end of story. There is nothing happening at the moment, I suppose because he's incarcerated. He is in the news as recently as four days ago, his appeal was refused, but he can try again. There is sustained coverage about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Except he wasn't a famous journalist before he got arrested. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: (from AN) This is not WP:BLP1E because it doesn't meet criteria #3 of BLP1E. Meets GNG. The article probably should be moved to "Trial of...", but that should be discussed in an RM rather than at AFD. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The trial meets GNG - he doesn't (certainly before his arrest, which is why his article kept getting deleted, quite apart from the fact he wrote most of it himself). Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is not a WP:BLP1E situation for failure to meet the third criterion. Even if BLP1E were invoked, that's rarely a reason for outright deletion, as redirecting/merging is generally what happens there so long as the person is mentioned in the article. That being said, I'm not able find anything outside of the context of the trial (well, there's this, but that's a blog and this is a living person). WP:BIO1E is instructive in that When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified (internal links omitted), and that's the relevant notability criterion here even if BLP1E is not relevant. A merge discussion might be warranted at some point, but I'm not sure which way that ought go. Most affirmatively here, I'm opposed to outright deletion, and I do think that either a merge or keep would be consistent with policy, but I'm not able to discern which way we should lean here. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to satisfy WP:PERP. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.